Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

southgatearc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 100 posts

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#91

Post by ArchOversight »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #36
tzs wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast started rolling out IPv6 across their network a long time ago. They hit 100% support on their broadband network in 2014. They run a lot of the own stuff on IPv6, such as on-demand video on their set-top boxes. I think any home modem/router that they support that did not support IPv6 hit EOL long ago and was replaced. There may be some class A owners who are trying to hold back IPv6 so they can make money off…

> Apple has long had IPv6 support in their operating systems, so I don't think they have been trying to hold it back either. And Microsoft has supported IPv6 since Windows 2000: https://news.microsoft.com/2000/03/15/microsoft-announces-ip... . I understand that LTE networks are exclusively IPv6, ditto "5G". My frustration with IPv6 is that my home ISP (Wave Broadband's DOCSIS service) is still IPv4 and they still hav…

My friend/co-worker signed up for Wave thinking that it supported IPv6, their websites and marketing is so incredibly fragmented...

We were working on some IPv6 projects that require IPv6 connectivity, and he didn't want to faff about with a tunnel or something along those lines, so he cancelled his Wave account and switched to Comcast.

Wave lost a customer due to not supporting IPv6... it's high time that ISP's started getting on-board.

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#92

Post by icedchai »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #33
rswail wrote: post #4

Is there any wonder that moving to IPv6 is delayed? Assuming an average $25/address, that's $400m/class A. Some of the organizations that own a class A: Apple, Ford, Softbank, Daimler, Prudential, Comcast. Softbank needs the money and the others wouldn't sniff at $300m+. Not sure how long the 100m odd addresses would last though.

> Assuming an average $25/address It'll be $50/address in a year, $100/address in 2022; I'm sure of it. Methinks now would be a very good time to invest^wspeculate in IPv4 addresses - I reckon it will be the next Bitcoin bubble-type event and likely even make it to the silly segment of TV news, with lampoonably inaccurate explanations of what an IPv4 address is to the general public.

I own a /24 registered back in the 90's. This is a "legacy" registration predating ARIN, meaning I pay no fees and never have. I have people emailing me about it now and then, but haven't sold it yet. I am using it for some dev servers.

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#93

Post by wmf »

mindslight wrote: post #89
rswail wrote: post #4

Is there any wonder that moving to IPv6 is delayed? Assuming an average $25/address, that's $400m/class A. Some of the organizations that own a class A: Apple, Ford, Softbank, Daimler, Prudential, Comcast. Softbank needs the money and the others wouldn't sniff at $300m+. Not sure how long the 100m odd addresses would last though.

You've got the incentives backwards. An organizational push for IPv6 would allow a company to free up their IP addresses and sell (/lease) them, actually realizing that valuation.

So far it looks like companies are mostly selling IPs that they have never used so they get the money and they get to stick with IPv4.

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#94

Post by laurent92 »

elihu wrote: post #77
rswail wrote: post #4

Is there any wonder that moving to IPv6 is delayed? Assuming an average $25/address, that's $400m/class A. Some of the organizations that own a class A: Apple, Ford, Softbank, Daimler, Prudential, Comcast. Softbank needs the money and the others wouldn't sniff at $300m+. Not sure how long the 100m odd addresses would last though.

Yeah, that's been my theory for awhile: that IPv4 addresses are effectively a currency, and that a move to IPv6 would devalue that currency. A disproportionate amount of that currency is held by companies and institutions based in the United States, and in many cases they're the same companies and institutions that one might otherwise would expect to be responsible for much of the work of transitioning to IPv6. Meanw…

Sorry for the stupid question but each time I got allocated an IPv6 address, I was allocated a /124 subnetwork (16 IPs) and not a single IP. How is IPv6 not going to be in shortage if even a small random actor like me gets allocated many IPs for each server?

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#95

Post by dragonwriter »

laurent92 wrote: post #94
elihu wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's been my theory for awhile: that IPv4 addresses are effectively a currency, and that a move to IPv6 would devalue that currency. A disproportionate amount of that currency is held by companies and institutions based in the United States, and in many cases they're the same companies and institutions that one might otherwise would expect to be responsible for much of the work of transitioning to IPv6. Meanw…

Sorry for the stupid question but each time I got allocated an IPv6 address, I was allocated a /124 subnetwork (16 IPs) and not a single IP. How is IPv6 not going to be in shortage if even a small random actor like me gets allocated many IPs for each server?

The IPv6 address space has 2^128 addresses. If you assign 2^4 addresses to every actual node, that still supports 2^124 nodes.

There's about 2^33 people on the planet, so that still supports about 2^91 nodes nodes per person.

A shortage isn't likely.

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#96

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

ArchOversight wrote: post #91
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple has long had IPv6 support in their operating systems, so I don't think they have been trying to hold it back either. And Microsoft has supported IPv6 since Windows 2000: https://news.microsoft.com/2000/03/15/microsoft-announces-ip... . I understand that LTE networks are exclusively IPv6, ditto "5G". My frustration with IPv6 is that my home ISP (Wave Broadband's DOCSIS service) is still IPv4 and they still hav…

My friend/co-worker signed up for Wave thinking that it supported IPv6, their websites and marketing is so incredibly fragmented... We were working on some IPv6 projects that require IPv6 connectivity, and he didn't want to faff about with a tunnel or something along those lines, so he cancelled his Wave account and switched to Comcast. Wave lost a customer due to not supporting IPv6... it's high time that ISP's star…

What are has both Comcast and Wave available? Most cities only allow a single cableco at a time - or was this an apartment complex?

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#97

Post by schoen »

_16k4 wrote: post #90
schoen wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm working on a project with John Gilmore to make those special addresses usable. https://github.com/schoen/unicast-extensions (note that most of the content in this repository was written by Dave Taht, who was running this project before; he got patches merged in the mainline Linux kernel that causes it to accept 0/8 and 240/4 as regular unicast addresses) If anyone would like to talk more about any aspect of this,…

Is the intent to get class E routed on the public internet, or just make it available in private networks? I've seen docker configs squatting on chunks of class E space for the local bridge interface, presumably because Linux takes it, and it doesn't usually clash with the landmines in rfc 1918 space. I know of at least one company using class E as the new 8/8 ;)

We're interested in routing it on the public Internet, although I also know that some people are using it internally and that one of the two older public proposals about this suggested that it might be better as new private address space.

One way that I've been thinking about the reachability issue is by analogy to

https://blog.cloudflare.com/fixing-reachability-to-1-1-1-1-g...

Many organizations used 1.1.1.1 as a test address (in addition to other uses of 1/8), so once Cloudflare started working to get a public service up there, it had to perform various reachability tests and also set up a way for people to report problems. This is apparently an ongoing process to this day, but Cloudflare's hard work helped make reachability that was initially patchy get asymptotically better. I think we can much do the same with other previously unassigned address ranges.

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#98

Post by lima »

Glanford wrote: post #86
jcrawfordor wrote: post #32

Without going into too much depth, there was considerable controversy over this planned sale because of questions about ARDC's authority to make decisions involving this IP space (ownership of the IP block was never really assigned to ARDC per se but rather assumed due to lack of another clear owner), some historic bad blood between some amateur radio groups and ARDC (involving in part ARDC's administration of this I…

A considerable controversy exists over the fact that the IPs were allocated to the global amateur radio community to be self-administered, but due to the sale the 044/8 block is now administered by ARIN. The sale hugely benefits an American company, Amazon, with the profits going to ARDC who will likely be biased in benefiting or providing preferential treatment to the American amateur radio community by virtue of th…

> The sale hugely benefits an American company, Amazon, with the profits going to ARDC who will likely be biased in benefiting or providing preferential treatment to the American amateur radio community by virtue of themselves being an American company, and despite claims that the sold IPs were unallocated and unused they were in fact partially allocated and used by Europeans.

Yep, HAMNET[1] had to renumber parts of their network, which isn't a lot of fun when your routers are on antenna towers.

ARDC is funding only US entities at this time: https://www.ampr.org/giving/

[1]: https://hamnetdb.net

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#99

Post by MertsA »

anderspitman wrote: post #65
MertsA wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>everything got thrown into IPv6 without solving the two problems that actually matters That would arguably be much better suited to a layer 4 solution. SCTP has solved both of those problems and is now 2 decades old. I have in the past harped on what a shame it is that QUIC was built, basically reinventing features of SCTP poorly. SCTP could still be viable over the open internet on IPv6 if it's done before the inev…

What do you see as the main advantages of SCTP over QUIC?

For HTTP? Basically just multihoming. For everything else? Multiplexing streams, multihoming, reliable datagrams, out of order delivery, in order delivery of datagrams, resistance to SYN floods, etc. It's basically a swiss-army knife transport protocol. By far the biggest drawback of SCTP is lack of widespread support. Linux and the BSDs have it implemented in the kernel but Windows and macOS only have third party implementations. It can be implemented in userspace, but now you have to tunnel all of it over UDP instead of just native SCTP and now you need to worry about separate userspace implementations conflicting by trying to use the same UDP port if you want to host it as a server.

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#100

Post by jlgaddis »

KA9Q wrote: post #70
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6's has a fixed subnet size of 64-bits[1]. A router needs its own subnet, ergo everyone gets their own 64-bit address range. ISPs cannot give each customer a single IPv6 address because that would require each customer to have a single device connected directly to their router with no router in the CPE - basically like how dial-up used to work. There's no demand for a service like that. [1] See https://www.ripe.ne…

It is not true that an ISP cannot give each customer just a single IPv6 address. The Linux box I use as a router gets a single (i.e., /128) address from Spectrum Cable on its upstream interface, and it has to explicitly ask for a separate /64 prefix to advertise on the local interface (this is called prefix delegation, PD). So it's certainly possible for an ISP to give a customer just one IPv6 address. I'm not sure,…

Phil,

Thank you so very much for NOS, which was my very first introduction to IP over packet and what initially got me interested in amateur radio (going on 30 years ago!) and is, in part, what led to me initially getting licensed and drawn into the world of networking at a young age.

73,

N9WWV

--

P.S. Welcome to HN!

Post reply on HN